"It ought to be made clear that I believe that marriage is fundamentally between a man and a woman, and so I do not support gay marriage."

How does that follow? I believe that men have more money than women, but that doesn't mean I don't support the equal distribution of wealth. You are telling us what you believe is the case and leaving out the all-important process by which you arrive at your decision as to what _should_ be the case -- but I think most of us here can guess at what that is, and why it doesn't have the slightest shred of credibility.

As for gay marriage in Britain, the second reading of the bill has passed by 375 votes to 70, which I would say is a pretty clear endorsement by the British people and their representatives. Once again, God's self-appointed representatives on earth have been shafted by their omnipotent Maker.

Don't you ever ask yourself: "If God doesn't want people to be homosexual, why doesn't he stop people being homosexual?" That would appear to be a no-brainer for an all-powerful being.

"It ought to be made clear that I believe that marriage is fundamentally between a man and a woman, and so I do not support gay marriage."

It ought to be made clear that I don't care either way about this legislation. I believe that the state should stay altogether out of personal relationships and that marriage is not under their jurisdiction, but in the jurisdiction of heaven. When I marry, it will be in a religious ceremony and the state will not be invited nor informed about it.

"To get an idea of why it would be politically damaging to the Liberal Party to legalise gay marriage"

Regardless of my personal views, "legalising" (wrong term, because it is already not illegal for homosexuals to marry) gay marriage would be of great political benefit to the Liberal Party, because it would decimate the Greens who except for "gay marriage" in all possible combinations and permutations have nothing else to say and would be virtually left without an election platform.

An interesting new front is opened with this very personal message to MPs.

You can almost hear it, that anonymous voice at the other end of the phone.

"You don't know me, but I know you, and I know what is good for you. Don't vote for gay marriage, it could be... damaging, know what I mean? See what a mess it has made of politicians' careers in the UK. And France too, don't forget those riots. We wouldn't like to see you out of a job, now would we? Just think of that glorious pension plan you'd be throwing away..."

Perfect. A direct appeal to their lack of conscience.

Smelly, but probably quite effective.

Hi Thomas,

We are eternally grateful to Gillard, the ALP and the left wing of Australian politics for sensitizing the electorates to wedge politics and spin.

I like your first comments where you try to establish that you are opposed to gay marriage and therefore support Abbott.

Then along comes your case for making this a much bigger issue than is real, the threat, the risk and the political wedge.

<< faced much criticism, electorally dangerous, could impact its political chances of election or re-election, politically damaging to the Liberal Party, the dangers of legalizing gay marriage for the Liberal Party in Australia, it risks alienating part of its core demographic, this could translate into electoral defeat, it would damage its chances of electoral success, potentially lead to the rise of another centre-right political party >>.

This one is particularly tacky Thomas, << regardless of the sexual orientation of his sister >>?

OK Thomas, I think we get your message; this is a HUGE issue for Abbott?

What you failed to mention is that the latest policy priorities from Newspoll, show that the gay marriage issue does not even feature in the top ten concerns of the electorate at all.

Your omissions and multiple references to polling on this issue are a misdirection of a non-issue. So who is making this such an issue Thomas?

<< the rise of UKIP has been because of the alienation of conservative voters in the UK who oppose gay marriage >>. Rubbish.

The UKIP policy platform is Taxation, Economy, European Union and Immigration. The UKIP party does support civil partnerships but opposes legalization of same-sex marriage.

So Cameron as a conservative is in political trouble for supporting a vote for legislation on gay marriage, the exact opposite is true of Abbott who as a conservative is opposing it?

Australians have decided their policy priorities and, much as you would like this to be otherwise, gay marriage is a wedge issue from Gillard/McTurdman, it will not be an election issue or the subject of a referendum.

Another see through ALP politician in the making?

Yuyutsu - "It ought to be made clear that I believe that marriage is fundamentally between a man and a woman, and so I do not support gay marriage."

It ought to be made clear that I don't care either way about this legislation. I believe that the state should stay altogether out of personal relationships and that marriage is not under their jurisdiction, but in the jurisdiction of heaven. When I marry, it will be in a religious ceremony and the state will not be invited nor informed about it.

I agree totally that the state should keep its grubby snout out of things that don't concern it, however it appears that the homosexual contingent seek something in the way of official legitimization that they feel can only be achieved by enactment of whatever legislation. In any case, aren't marriage celebrants / clergy / whatever required to submit details of those they marry to the relevant gubmunt department ?? In any case, adopting a position in favour of homosexual marriage purely to defuse the Greens doesn't strike me as a particularly smart move. It tells me the LNP cares infinitely more about power & influence than about any moral principles the party once might have had. The sheeple have never been asked for their opinion, we've only had a small noisy minority clamouring to be heard, apart from the Greens of course, which has long been a haven for all manner of funny people.

Pardon my intrusion but I reject the proposition of gay 'marriage'. I find the images of two men passionately kissing or men dressed in bridal dresses as deeply offensive and I am sickened by it.

I see the desperate push by the Gay Lobby as being proof that our society is rapidly becoming depraved and, with fear, I wonder what the next step is likely to be.

When are the pedophiles going to demand their rights to have sex with children or even have parents demanding the right to have sex with their offspring?

Are people so caught up in the 'novelty' of gays that they can't see that we are destroying the fabric of our society? As they gawk at the sad people who take part in the Gay Mardi Gras can't they see what is happening, that they are being conned?

Can't they see that children no longer know what is right but are exposed to all manner of weird relationships during their formative years to say nothing about easily obtained pornography?

WTF is happening? Where are the people who try to protect our society, our kids from people who have unnatural instincts? Why are they being given free reign when, for centuries, they have been kept at arms length?

My position is that gays should be allowed to go about their deviant lifestyles without censure. Let them just live quietly and leave the rest of society alone to get on with being a mum and dad who raise their children to know the difference between right and wrong and give them clear rules.

The decadence of Ancient Rome has reached our shores. Our longterm survival is being threatened!

David G - I reject the proposition of gay 'marriage'. I find the images of two men passionately kissing or men dressed in bridal dresses as deeply offensive and I am sickened by it.

I see the desperate push by the Gay Lobby as being proof that our society is rapidly becoming depraved and, with fear, I wonder what the next step is likely to be.

When are the pedophiles going to demand their rights to have sex with children or even have parents demanding the right to have sex with their offspring?

EXACTLY. How FFS did we move so quickly from recognizing the AC-DC set have a very real problem to actually approving their activities ?? I noticed a recent media article claiming its now illegal for teachers in the NSW public school system to tell rug-rats being straight is normal !! Just the thought of two men together is disgusting beyond words. As you so correctly note, what DOES come next ?? The only political figure I'm aware of who has chosen to speak against the slow but steady reduction in moral standards is Senator Bernardi, and he quickly got jumped on by all and sundry. As I've said elsewhere, I am aware of a number of kiddyfiddlers in positions that make them effectively untouchable (yes Martha, the powers that be do know about them) so its not by any means inconceivable that this insidious practice will also be legitimized in due course.

"It ought to be made clear that I believe that marriage is fundamentally between a man and a woman, and so I do not support gay marriage."

Agreed

This is a media-led push, with the media being manipulated by activists and political 'Progressives'. Gays who disagree are not being given a platform. They wanted and got and end to discrimination. Now they want to be left in peace to enjoy their alternative lifestyles. Unfortunately for them, the serially interfering political 'Progressives', who always know what is best for everyone else, have other ideas.

There is no discrimination against gays. The Greens/Gillard government has stated emphatically that it removed all such discrimination through over 80 law changes. The Australian Human Rights Commission agrees and it does not regard the Marriage Act as discriminatory against gays. Gay rights are not being denied. Or else gay activists would be pounding on the doors of the Australian Human Rights Commission and it would be ferocious in defence of those alleged 'rights'.

Gay 'rights' in this case is a furphy, all rhetoric to bluff, bully and negatively stereotype opponents as 'homophpbes', which they are not.

It is just a small number of activists, but mainly political 'Progressives' of the Left who have taken it upon themselves to tell all gays how to lead their lives. Up until very recently the same advocates who push for gay marriage were adamantly opposed to the extension of the model of heterosexual marriage and the State control it broght with it, to gay relationships.

The effect of the meddling of the 'Progressives' is already apparent from the changes to de facto law where gays can no longer decide the status of their relationships.

to be continued..

contd..

Bureaucrats now presume to tell gays the status of their relationship and courts rule on the division of assets. What gays have previously decided for themselves is now subject to regulation by the State. To top it off, there is no firm definition of de facto, just a mess of notions derived from idealism to be interpreted. Even federal bureaucrats from different government agencies disagree on particular cases and bigamy is legitimised. There already cases where courts have decided that one or more de factos can claim on the income and assets of a marriage.

The same political 'Progressives' who made the mess of de facto arrangements - even students sharing digs can find out later they are regarded as de factos - are now driving gay marriage. However the same 'Progressives' sledge and scoff at marriage anyhow and would see it trashed. The same 'Progressives' who criticise church and State control of marriage and State interference in private relationships are pushing the very institution and State control they say they hate onto gays.

How come the State recognition and State control, and the wedding dress and church that were up to only recently resisted and mocked by gays are now reckoned to be crucial to the psychological health and wellbeing of gays? How did they ever get along before?

Dear Praxidice,

I am not aware of any law in Australia that requires a priest to report the sacraments they perform to the authorities. Is anyone here aware of any such law?

(and if such a law exists, then I will need to marry underground or overseas)

Sexual orientation is not something we choose, but rather, something that is decided for us in the womb and by nature!
Tony Abbott should know this as well as any person can, given he has and grew up with a gay sister!
Every human being extant on the planet has an equal right to pursue personal happiness and sexual gratification.
Repeat, equal rights!
The UK statistics are quite revealing and indicate that those prepared to actively discriminate against equal treatment before the law, are in reality, a very small minority.
And or, those prepared to put aside personal scruples and grant true equality, are a sizeable majority.
Gillard is now being wedged by former PM Rudd, who can see the writing writ large on the wall.
Clearly, the overwhelming bulk of the parliamentary Labour party are in favour of true equality, and see it as an issue that could tip the election results back their way?
Not that that could do much more than reduce the liberal lead, or prevent a rout?
Gillard needs to understand she is being wedged by Rudd and respond to defuse the issue!
Namely, by making true equality an election issue, to be decided by a subsequent referendum, which will still enable those inside the party to wash their hands, or avoid having to set aside personal principles or prejudices?
A proposed referendum could also ask several other yes or no questions.
Moreover, a recent survey indicated a significant portion of electors would be prepared to change their vote, if early childhood, preschool education, were ever to become, a yes or no election issue!
Rhrosty.

[Deleted. Very offensive. Obscene language.]

Dear Yuyutsu - I am not aware of any law in Australia that requires a priest to report the sacraments they perform to the authorities.

Just checked the relevant website

http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/justice-services/births-deaths-and-marriages/marriages/marriage-certificate

and found

We register all marriages that take place in Queensland. A marriage must be registered before you can apply for a marriage certificate.

It should be noted that the certificate issued by the celebrant or minister of religion on the day of marriage is ceremonial and will not meet the identity requirements of many government agencies (e.g. Queensland Transport, Passport Office) and financial institutions.

If you were married outside Queensland, you will need to apply to the registering authority in the place where you were married.

Appears that Big Brother does indeed stick its grubby beak in peoples marriages

[Refers to previous comment that was deleted.]

for so long the regressive left tried to destroy marriage. How outdated they would scream. Wasn't it the PM or at least held the emily's list view that all wives are prostitutes. Well having failed to destroy marriage they now want to pervert it.

On the top of his website this guy has a quote by John Howard telling us that "truth is absolute".
What a very sick joke!
Never mind that Howard was a bare-faced liar especially in regard to the fabricated LIES for the illegal invasion of Iraq under the coalition of the killing .Under international law he should be prosecuted as a war criminal.
Instead he was awarded a "freedom" medal by the leader of the coalition of the killing for his services to what exactly - the devastation of Iraq and the now destabilization of the entire Middle East.
Not that the then status quo either in Iraq or in the region altogether was in any sense desirable or beneficial to the millions of down-trodden uman being that lived there.

Meanwhile back in the time of the Iraq and refugees on boats (manufactured crisis) one of the coalition Senators called Howard a lying rodent.

Rhrosty, "Clearly, the overwhelming bulk of the parliamentary Labour party are in favour of true equality"

WTF is 'true equality'?

Using 'equality', 'rights' and so on is rhetorical trickery to set up ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with activists for gay marriage. It is using the Big Lie technique to negatively stereotype and knee-cap opponents. Useful where the activists cannont mount a convincing case and are forced to rely on emotive slogans and sledging.

It is absolute nonsense that the Marriage Act 'discriminates' against gays, which is being implied. Honestly now, if there was any discrimination the Australian Human Rights Commission would right be onto it like a fat kid with the last packet of Smarties.

Rudd never can resist the opportunity to goad the woman who displaced him. Rudd's support for gay marriage activists and the factional ginger group is an embarrassment to them, and to the Labor Party.

Dear Praxidice,

<<We register all marriages that take place in Queensland. A marriage must be registered before you can apply for a marriage certificate.>>

That's no problem for me because marriages are not taking place in Queensland (or in any other Australian state) - they take place in heaven!

Besides, I don't need their piece of paper called "marriage certificate", I just want to be married in fact, before God and before my family and friends.

Besides, in one year, whether we like it or not, the government would consider us "de-facto" which is the same nonsense anyway.

<<If you were married outside Queensland, you will need to apply to the registering authority in the place where you were married>>

That's called 'prayer', no worries!

It is indeed difficult to understand why supposed conservatives, such as David Cameron in the UK and John Key in New Zealand, pushed the same-sex marriage barrow. On closer examination, it would be more accurate to describe them as libertarian rather than conservative. Malcolm Turnbull falls into the same boat.

In David Cameron's case, he may yet rue his decision to legislate for same-sex marriage, given indications of subsequent disagreement in his party.

What was notable in both countries, was that the majority of voters were opposed to same-sex marriage. The same applies in Australia. On the other hand if the homosexual lobby were confident that it has the numbers, it would not be so vociferous in opposing Tony Windsor's constructive proposal to hold a referendum to gauge the support for same-sex marriage.

Raycom, evidence my dear chap not personal comment!

"Sexual orientation is not something we choose, but rather, something that is decided for us in the womb and by nature!" Rhosty.
Stated as though it were a fact but endless efforts to find any peer reviewed evidence for this has left me empty handed. I'm not saying this impacts on whether gay marriage should be legislated or not but if Rhosty is, then another argument needs to be found.

Again Daffy Duck makes absolutely no substantive input into the discussion of the article, preferring to attack the author instead of debating the nature of the article. What a ridiculous post... Daffy Duck if you have nothing to say on the actual article then your shouldn't be posting. Personal attacks just show that you are losing the argument.

Raycom hits the nail on the head. Even in NZ, many conservative supporters have left the National Party. In the UK, many members of the Conservative party, and of the branches have left the party and joined UKIP. If gay rights activists actually believed that they had the support of the whole nation, they would allow a plebiscite on this issue. However they prefer to lobby internally to weak politicians who have no conviction. This shows the nature of the debate. Targeting individuals, instead of allowing a substantive debate.

"Sexual orientation is not something we choose, but rather, something that is decided for us in the womb and by nature!"

same arguement the paedophiles can use.

I find it interesting that majority of the posts are strongly against marriage equality in Australia. Let me pose a question... How will marriage equality personally affect you?

Statistics show that 65% of Australians are for Gay Marriage, with 85% believing it to be inevitable. So how then will supporting Marriage Equality "break the Libs"?

Sure we can look at happenings from other countries but in reality Australia is a separate entity and we are renowned for our individual views and tastes.

Rhrosty is in favour of a referendum to let the people decide! Bring it on!
Rhrosty is in favour of equal pay, equal rights and equal treatment.
What is true equality? Well, it's definitely not quite different treatment!
The fact that this question is even put, underlines the sheer paucity of argument for the no case.
Peer reviewed evidence David?
Oh, I see! That means any evidence, however compelling, can be simply rejected out of hand, because you personally, can't find some other scientific review.
Almost impossible to find if you are not looking or determined not to allow credible cogent evidence to undermine a personal position; you've likely held for years? And perhaps even relied on, entirely unjustifiably, to hurt now estranged members of your own family?
Simply put, I don't intend to do research your for you, given that would simply allow you to continue living in the personal bubble of denial, that alone supports your denialism.
And one is gob-smacked by the time between my post and your so called in depth conclusion and subsequent post.
Thorough research might take years, rather than the few intervening minutes, during which you claimed your were doing your in depth research!
The personal abuse you heap on all those who take a far more objective and or tolerant view, is hardly a substitute for real in depth and positively conclusive research!
The challenge for you is; find some peer reviewed scientific evidence that quite conclusively, supports your "stone age" medieval view?
Rhrosty.

Correction, and apologies David. Peer reviewed evidence, Rational View.
Rhrosty.

Oops, Rational-Debate.

Its quite simple. Any and every thing that anybody writes and says needs to be looked at or interpreted in the multiple contexts of what they espouse and promote, and more importantly by the company that they keep.
Anyone who uses the quote from John Howard re upholding the truth at the top of his blog is in my opinion seriously deluded and therefore his opinions on anything should be taken with a bath tub full of salt, and be taken on an adventure down the Rabbit Hole with Alice (hoping that Elmer Fudd is not there with his shot gun).

Furthermore if you check out the stuff on his blog you will find that it is full of simplistic black and white cliches. No space or room for ambiguity, paradox or shades of grey.

Meanwhile of course in my opinion Tony Abbott is potentially (and already is) the biggest two-faced liar that has ever strutted his stuff on the Australian political stage. One of his mentors is Bishop Hart who revealed his two-faced colours at the Royal Commission earlier this week. I expect that his primary mentor and "religious" adviser George Pell will do the same.

Meanwhile of course this site describes the crimes that the church fathers have committed and the world wide systematic criminal conspiracy to cover them up.
http://www.vaticancrimes.us
Such is the nature of the company that Bishop Hart admitted to keeping - with a flippant comment and a smirk on his face.

Oh - and I should have said such is the company from whom Tony Abbott gets his "spiritual" advice.

Rhosty, I'm not sure why you think I did my research over the last few minutes. Did I say that? Pretty sure the topic is not so new. This is a topic on which I want to be well informed, for many of the reasons you have outlined, so I have spent extensive time reading material from all quarters and talking with friends of all persuasions. I am yet to find anything that resembles a scientific argument for your statement, yet is consistently gets thrown up as fact. It could be my lack of research skills, but two university degrees would suggest I can tell one end of a book from the other...
I clearly state that this is NOT a "make or break" point regarding the debate but then I didn't introduce it, you did.
I didn't ask you to do my research, I have done more than enough. I simply asked you to produce yours, which I sincerely would like to read.
So make assumptions all you like, accuse me (falsely) of heaping personal abuse on people, etc but I'm not really sure you are adding constructively to this debate.

Tony Windsor's suggestion for a referendum is the obvious answer in a democracy for any issue that sharply divides the community. It is unfortunate that Australia is not a democracy - we share with nearly all the Western world rule OF the people BY the political parties and mandarins FOR those who buy them en bloc.

The gay marriage issue is not a matter of supporting or opposing gay marriage. It is supporting or opposing legal recognition of gay marriage on the same basis as that of heterosexual marriage. Surveys suggest the majority of the people support this recognition without in any way supporting gay marriage as an option nor themselves.

Those who suggest that gay marriage is akin to paedophilia or bestiality have no moral compass. Otherwise they would recognise sex, like religion, if practised on anyone not a consenting adult as a violation of basic human rights.

Here is what's going to happen. Tony Abbott is going to become PM and he is going to pretend that gay marriage does not exist or is not an issue, and as a result the issue is going to build and build and build so much so that it will work in the favour of gay marriage supporters.

Tony Abbott is against a referendum because he knows the majority of Australians support gay marriage, if the majority did not support gay marriage then you can bet that he would be supporting a referendum. So while Abbott is leader of the Liberals you can forget about a referendum.

Poll shows support of gay marriage at high:

SUPPORT for same-sex marriage has risen to its highest level, with a new poll revealing nearly two-thirds of the community want change as pressure continues to build on Julia Gillard in the wake of Tasmania's move to introduce its own laws.

The Galaxy research -- commissioned by Australian Marriage Equality -- also shows 52 per cent of Coalition voters want same-sex marriage reform and 44 per cent of voters would more likely support Tony Abbott if he allowed Coalition MPs a conscience vote on the issue.

READ HERE: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/poll-shows-support-of-gay-marriage-at-high/story-e6frgczx-1226444286843

"Sexual orientation is not something we choose, but rather, something that is decided for us in the womb and by nature! "

By that hypothesis, women such as Penny Wong and Tony Abbott's sister, who were previously in heterosexual relationships, should not have switched to lesbian relationships. Similarly, for men previously in heterosexual relationships who then chose to switch to a homosexual relationship.

Again by that hypothesis, it would not be possible to change sexual orientation by counselling. The fact that many starting with same-sex orientation have become 'straight' through counselling, does not support the validity of the hypothesis. Predictably, homosexual lobby spin goes out of its way to discredit the success of such counselling.

Raycom, your at it again, making personal comment on an issue you have no knowledge of!

David G - Can't they see that children no longer know what is right but are exposed to all manner of weird relationships during their formative years to say nothing about easily obtained pornography?

Did you see that SMH / Fairfax story a few weeks back claiming its now illegal for teachers in the NSW school system to tell rug-rats being straight is 'normal' ??

What is "Normal" !

Daffy Duck - Meanwhile back in the time of the Iraq and refugees on boats (manufactured crisis) one of the coalition Senators called Howard a lying rodent.

How unfair, the Senator should have described the clown as a DIS-honorable lying rodent.

Yuyutsu - That's no problem for me because marriages are not taking place in Queensland (or in any other Australian state) - they take place in heaven!

I bet if you try entering 'heaven' into the departmental computer it will spit out 'not known' !! Interestingly, there isn't a biblical pro-forma for marriage, only one 'a man shall leave his father', consequently they seem to have been almost 'registry office' events initially. The first mention of wedding feasts for commoners is much later although one would assume the kings of the day did a bit of serious partying. I presume either the greeks or the romans dreamed up the 'bigger than Ben Hur' style affairs with every relative on planet earth, so it was probably commonplace by the first century. Mind you the jews wouldn't have been backward in finding ways to make a profit out of whatever.

Rhrosty - the overwhelming bulk of the parliamentary Labour party are in favour of true equality

Yeah, the 'some pigs are more equal than others' kind

EmBeth - Statistics show that 65% of Australians are for Gay Marriage

By that reckoning, two out of every three people one meets (on average) are either homosexuals or sympathizers. Hmmmmm, there are about five hundred people in my community, and a grand total of four lesbians (absolutely none of the male AC-DC set). I'm only aware of one lone person who wouldn't happily make pointed suggestions about the lesbians moving a long way away should they get out of line. Seems thats a tad lower than your statistics, but then I always did think that Benjamin Disraeli hit the nail on the head.

Kipp - What is "Normal"

In the context of the posting it doesn't require a reader to have an awful lot of marbles to figure it out

jason84 - Poll shows support of gay marriage at high

Where is the supporting information like exactly HOW MANY were polled, WHO was polled, WHERE they were polled, WHAT they were asked and so on.
For all we know, an Australian reporter went to a gay bar in their lunchtime and spoke to the two sitting beside him / her at the bar. Even if the thing was run halfway professionally, there are still the issues of representative sample & bias in the questioning. Reminds me of a statistics course at university that was commonly known as 'how to cheat and lie with figures'. Is it any wonder Ben Disraeli had a rather jaundiced attitude toward statisticians ??

Just as there is great controversy about issues
like abortion, there seems to be the same arising
from same-sex marriage. Some people seem to view
that there is only one "right" marriage form, and
they of course naturally interpret any change as
heralding the doom of the whole institution. To those
people their view of marriage is self-evidently right
and proper, and usually God-given as well.

It is important therefore to recognise that marriage is
a man-made institution, and like any other institution,
does and has inevitably change through time.
Today there is an immense range in marriage, family, and
kinship patterns.

Same-sex marriage will happen in this country because the
greater majority of Australians support it. Politicians
will have to come to terms with the wishes of their electorates.

In a secular society such as Australia professes to be, a society
that has secular government and no official or state
religion and where governments are supposed to treat all
citizens as equal, where religious laws have no legal status
it stands to reason that the insitution of marriage cannot be
designated only for select members of our society.

It is time for a Referendum on the issue.

Praxidice, "normal" is about being respectful to all, and not attempting to impose your personal beliefs on others.
You may have "A Chip on your Shoulder", but do your have what it takes to be an Anarchist, as by reading your posts you appear to lack substance in offering an alternative.

Things have to change when state regulation of
marriage is unable to ensure the fundamentals of
adulthood and choice - then appropriate legislation
is warranted especially in a country which supposedly
has the separation of state and church.

It's not a question of "if" this will happen.
It's a question of "when."

The will of the people will prevail.

Dear Lexi,

<<state regulation of marriage is unable to ensure the fundamentals of adulthood and choice>>

I am not aware of any state regulation of marriage or denial of the fundamentals of adulthood and choice in Australia [in the area of committed personal relationships, obviously there are many restricting regulations of adult choice in other areas of life].

Anyone can already marry anyone (or even more than one) in Australia - the only question is whether or not they can pay a fee and receive an official piece of paper in return.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It is the legilsation that is being questioned.
When the Marriage Act is unable to ensure the
fundamentals of adulthood and choice then
appropriate legislative change is warranted.
After all the principles of liberal democracy
holds that consenting adults shall be able to make
any union they wish.

Dear Lexi,

Do you care to explain in what way(s) existing legislation restricts the fundamentals of adulthood and choice?

Yes, the principles of liberal democracy hold that consenting adults shall be able to make any union they wish, but isn't that the case already? Why try to fix what is not broken?

All that activists are currently fighting for is the right of a same-gender couple to pay a fee and receive a piece of paper in return. Why not just save that fee?

Yuyuttsu,

I suppose it's for exactly the same reason as that enjoyed by heterosexual couples....official recognition of the union.

Dear Poirot,

<<I suppose it's for exactly the same reason as that enjoyed by heterosexual couples....official recognition of the union.>>

'enjoyed'?

If I were Chinese, I would probably word it that such 'official recognition' by the authorities brings bad luck or poor Feng Shui to the relationship.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The Marriage Act as it currently stands only legally
recognises unions between a man and a woman.
In other words the state does not legally allow
consenting adults to be able to make(legally)
any union they wish. The law denies same sex couples the
fundamentals of adulthood and choice - change of this
legislation is therefore warranted because the principles of
liberal democracy holds that consenting adults shall legally
be able to make any union they wish. Currently the law
prevents them from doing so. Quite simple really.

I can't make it any clearer for you and if you still
can't understand this - then that's not something I can do
anything about. Although I suspect that you understand
only too well - and you're simply stirring.

In any case I shall leave you to it.

Dear Lexi,

Repeating the same words three times doesn't help to clarify, so I can understand your point.

To the best of my knowledge, in Australia, nothing legal prevents either heterosexuals or homosexuals from forming a couple, building a nest and even bring and raise children in that nest. There is no legal requirement to register one's union - or else perhaps 30% of Australians would have been breaking the law regularly.

Moreover, if what you write is true, then after a year of living together, the law 'rehabilitates' such unions and considers them 'de-facto' rather than illegal.
(that being a separate problematic issue if the couple is not in agreement about that status)

Sorry, but I sincerely have no clue what law(s) you are talking about.

Poirot, "I suppose it's for exactly the same reason as that enjoyed by heterosexual couples....official recognition of the union"

Twaddle. What gay activist or political 'Progressive' doesn't sledge State involvement in relationships, saying that the State should keep out of people's bedrooms?

It is noteworthy that gays haven't been breaking down the doors of Centrelink to notify it of couple status.

In the Netherlands where gay marriage has been available for years, few gays take advantage of the opportunity to marry. That makes it a few percent of the few percent of the community that the overturned marriage law advantaged, and the numbers show that many of them have since separated.

The whole ethos of the gay culture is and has always been diametrically opposed to complying with the 'breeder' culture, the weddings dress, small breeding box in the 'burbs and so on. The self-respecting queers of yesteryear would be rolling in their graves at how easily the feminists who are down on marriage and family, and political 'Progressives' who are all for State control of simply everything have been able to manipulate the media and sell gays a pup on this one.

By way of example, gays used to be able to form and change their relationships at their choice and through their own judgement. Presently, after years of interference by feminists and political 'Progressives' it is State bureaucrats who presume to tell gays the status of their relationship, which courts rule on, and any independent decision on income and assets post-relationship has similarly been taken out of their hands for lawyers and courts to decide.

So much for that free-wheeling queer lifestyle outside of regulated 'breeder' society. All the while, the big joke on gays is that feminists and 'Progressives' think that marriage is *bleep* anyway, epitomises everything they love to hate and they are beavering away at dumping it.

Honestly, just look at the articles and comments on this site alone, where it is those who are most critical of marriage and would shaft the institution tomorrow who are the most ardent supporters of gay marriage.

Lexi: "It is time for a Referendum on the issue."

Indeed!

Politicians should represent the whole of their constituencies, not just the homosexual lobby group that has been pressuring their consciences, when voting on such a vital issue as the definition of marriage. In fact, such a vote should not be undertaken until there has been a voter-wide referendum.

It is difficult to understand why Australians for Marriage Equality spokesman Rodney Croome vehemently opposes a referendum, particularly when he goes around propagandising that the majority of Australians support same-sex marriage.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The Marriage Act prohibits same-sex couples to
marry. That is the law as it currently stands
in Australia. Only marriage between members of
the opposite sexes is recognised in this country.

You can Google the Act for yourself.

Dear Raycom,

A Referendum is a sensible way to go.
Let the people decide.

Talking about Mr Rodney Croome ...

Here's a link that may be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2778326.html

Raycom - It is difficult to understand why Australians for Marriage Equality spokesman Rodney Croome vehemently opposes a referendum, particularly when he goes around propagandising that the majority of Australians support same-sex marriage

Croome knows the statistical probability of ANY referendum getting up is around one in fifty. Even if his claim about the majority of Australians supporting homosexual marriage has legs (which I doubt), referenda haven't had much success in this country. Personally I believe thats because the sheeple don't trust politicians (lips moving and all that) ... YMMV

Yuyutsu -Anyone can already marry anyone (or even more than one) in Australia - the only question is whether or not they can pay a fee and receive an official piece of paper in return.

All that activists are currently fighting for is the right of a same-gender couple to pay a fee and receive a piece of paper in return. Why not just save that fee?

If I were Chinese, I would probably word it that such 'official recognition' by the authorities brings bad luck or poor Feng Shui to the relationship.

I've never even thought about marrying 'more than one', however I believe the authorities would not only take a VERY dim view of it, but they would at the very least demand a HUMUNGOUS 'fee' and / or a period of free accommodation.

Seems some people view the official piece of paper more significant than the relationship with their partner

Dunno about official recognition, but marrying 'more than one' would certainly result in bad luck and poor Feng Shui. Most married folk have enough problems with the one partner, who in their right mind would want two ??

Tony Abbott opposes a referendum on same sex marriage, now I wonder why !!

Dear Lexi,

Thank you for the information, I am looking into the law and intend to receive expert advice, especially regarding sections 101 and 103 of the 1961 marriage act and in particular I need to study the legal meaning of 'solemnise'.

<<Only marriage between members of the opposite sexes is recognised in this country.>>

I am not particularly concerned about same-sex marriage or about being recognised, I am concerned about my own intended marriage and we have no interest in becoming officially recognised anyway. All we want to do is have a private religious marriage ceremony before God, family and friends. We have no need for someone to tell us (and risk 6-months in jail) "Now you are married", but only to perform the sacrament itself. In other words, we are interested in the marriage itself rather than in its 'solemnisation'.

As it stands, we may need to choose between going underground and hoping not to be caught; doing it overseas; or risking 6 months in jail... for a most worthy cause.

(but from what I read, gay people in Australia already perform unofficial weddings and so far none have been charged or prosecuted - would the authorities then discriminate against heterosexuals?)

Who could believe that the state of Australia forbids and punishes people for performing a religious ceremony that harms nobody (I am of course not referring to human or even animal sacrifice, not even to disturbing the neighbours)!

Dear Yuyutsu,

You're most welcome and I wish you success in your
legal quest. I also wish you every possible Happiness
and Blessing in your married life.

All The Best.

Kipp - Tony Abbott opposes a referendum on same sex marriage, now I wonder why !!

Would anyone really know what goes on inside the head of the RAbbott ?? Judging from the historical perspective, the odds are well against ANY referendum getting up (from what I can see, around one question in fifty gets up), consequently there would need to be a lot of EXTREMELY effective evangelizing required to make a dint on the odds. Despite claims floating around to the effect that 'most Australians support homosexual marriage', its interesting that some presumably self-professed lord high & mighty of homosexuals vehemently opposes a referendum. Deems to me that character (whoever he is) has checked the history of referenda and decided there is more to be lost than gained.

Dear Yuyutsu

I must have missed part of this story. Whilst the gubmunt muppets are wont to stick their beaks in things that are, as far as I'm concerned, none of their business, I haven't encountered anything about six months incarceration for not 'solemnising' a union. I fully realize a lot of gubmunt muppets believe they are high enough up the pecking order to give orders to the Almighty, but this 'solemnising' bit is well over the top. Unless you concern yourself with 'render to Caesar', what could they possibly do if you just told the clowns you were in a defacto relationship ?? When its all said and done, that probably what homosexual couples do. Mind you with a federal election looming, no politician would risk incurring the wrath of the homosexual lobby. An interesting point, apart from 'a man shall leave his father' & a couple of mentions of wedding feasts, (remember these were in relation to mediterranean folk who tend to have ginormous family gatherings) there is precious little of consequence in the bible about wedding protocol or format. Some theologians believe that a man and a woman are married in the sight of God after consumating their relationship (this tends to fit with Old Testament logic), however John 4 tells a completely different story. The Samaritan woman had by her own admission slept around a bit yet its clear that JC didn't consider her married to any of the men. Depending on your individual beliefs or membership of whatever religious 'franchise', you may or may not equate JC & YHWH, but whatever, their views on marriage wouldn't differ.

>>Judging from the historical perspective, the odds are well against ANY referendum getting up (from what I can see, around one question in fifty gets up), consequently there would need to be a lot of EXTREMELY effective evangelizing required to make a dint on the odds.<<

For all of those of you calling for a referendum, please read this link:

http://parliamentflagpost.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/quick-guide-to-plebiscites-in-australia.html

Referendums are hard to get through because to pass a referendum it must achieve a 'double majority': it must win the majority of votes nationally and also win in a majority of the states.

But referendums are ONLY for constitutional matters and gay marriage isn't a constitutional matter. If there was to be a public vote on gay marriage it would be a plebiscite which is closely related to a referendum but not the same thing. Plebiscites only require a simple majority to be passed, not a double majority.

This makes it more likely that plebiscites will be passed but plebiscites - unlike referendums - aren't binding. Regardless of how the public votes the Government is quite free to ignore the plebiscite result and pursue its own preferred outcome through the Parliament. And if the Mad Monk has his hands on the levers you can guarantee they will do exactly that.

>>from what I can see, around one question in fifty gets up<<

Who taught you math? Since Federation 8 out of 44 referenda have passed: that gives odds of 2 in 11 - somewhat shorter than 1 in 50.

Cheers,

Tony

How refreshing, finally, that someone actually understands what referendums are for (Tony). Governments are elected to govern...you know, make decisions. It is a weak government that would run to the people each time a decision had to be made. And in the case of same-sex marriage it is not the divisive issue many, on both sides, make it out to be.

Each time I see the debate it is the same old hacks making the same old noises. The issue divides a minority and the majority are blase about it. Yeah, polls do support the claim the majority approve of same-sex marriage but it is not a game-breaking issue. It won't decide elections.

Same-sex marriage will eventually be a reality in Australia. And guess what, the institution of marriage will not collapse or be corrupted. I'd bet that the vast majority of people will never be affected by gay people getting married. After all, they make up around 2% of the population. Some people really do have an unhealthy obsession with others having sex though...that is the truly worrying aspect of the debate.

Dear Lexi,

Thank you for your warm greetings.

With great relief, we received advice that there is no legal problem with holding an unofficial religious marriage sacrament in Australia, provided that the word 'legal' (and derivatives such as 'legally') are not mentioned anywhere in the ceremony (and provided of course that we find a priest/minister who agrees to run it).

I presume the same holds for gay couples.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Therein lies the problem. Unlike yourself -
same-sex couples do want their marriage recognised
legally. They want the same rights as other couples
have in Australia. The right to marry - with that
piece of paper attached. They want the freedom to
have that particular choice that's open to others
but not to them.

Once again the lie that gays are somehow being denied their rights.

It is balderdash isn't it? Because if it were true, activists would be beating a path to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

No, the truth that is the opposite applies. The Gillard government has declared that it removed all discrimination against gays by over 80 law changes taken some years ago. The Australian Human Rights Commission does not believe that the Marriage Act discriminates against gays.

Dear onthebeach,

Apart from the fact that the Marriage Act only allows
marriage to be between a "man and a woman, to the exclusion
of all others."

Is that what you mean as non-discrimination?

And surely if only 2 percent of the population want the
same rights as the rest of us have - it won't make much
difference then to the Insitution of marriage will it?

As you pointed out - they're not clamering at the doors in
vast numbers. So why not allow the ones that do want to get
married - marry? Afterall a committed relationship surely
must be better than a wildly promiscuous one, right?

Good for society, and all that.

Lexi,

No, the opposite is the case, as already stated:

- The Gillard government has declared that it removed all discrimination against gays by over 80 law changes taken some years ago; and

- The Australian Human Rights Commission does not believe that the Marriage Act discriminates against gays, or else it would have acted long ago.

You have to do better than the broken record and provide facts and argument to dispel what those authorities say.

What expertise do you have since you purport to be a better judge than the Gillard government and the Australian Human Rights Commission? Exactly who do you represent? Give the number of voters you consulted with and when.

It is not a majorty of gays that is driving the gay marriage gig but a media campaign led by a few activists, and a large rump of feminists and political 'Progressives'. They always presume to know what is best for others and are forever messing about with social reengineering. Yet they claim they are opposed to the 'State' interfering in bedrooms. What hypocrites and liars they are, and arrogant.

Gays will come to rue the day they ever let that little lot tell them how to lead the lives. Goodbye freedom to choose how to make and break relationships and sort personal belingings after. Already gays have State bureaucrats telling them the status of their relationships and lawyers are involved in break-ups. More to come it seems. How did gays ever sort their lives before the feminists and 'Progressives' stuck their noses in to make rules for them?

Dear Lexi,

And I want an official and legal piece of paper stating that I am the most wonderful and gorgeous person in the world.

Providing such pieces of paper is a job for artists, stationers, newsagents and the like, not the government. You may also receive one for mother's day!

I am not suggesting that gay people should not 'receive' the same kind of 'service' from the government as heterosexuals - I am saying that it's not the roll of government to provide this kind of services. I am also quite convinced that maintaining the marriage registration offices by government, despite the fee is not even a profitable venture covering all the public servants employed there, hence we the tax-payers pay for other people's stationary.

As for any significance of that piece of paper, see Onthebeach's replies. As far as Australia is concerned, by now such papers have no practical use. I do concede that they still have one use, which Australia cannot remove on its own - to help partners (mainly non-Australians) of Australian dual-citizens to obtain foreign visas.

Dear onthebeach,

Again with the "Feminists" and "Progressives."
You Sir also have to do better than that.
You keep bringing up these old chestnuts.
Why? What does that have to do with an opinion
being expressed on a particular issue. Surely
the opinion should be simply judged on its own
merits. For example, I wouldn't dream of
suggesting that it's
only certain neanderthals in our society who
think like you.

Who assume
that there is only one "right" marriage form,
which is self-evidently right and proper (and
usually God given as well).

However, it is important to recognise,
that there is
an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns
and that marriage, like any other social institution
will inevitably change through time. And people's views
along with it.

Most of us are already aware that same sex couples
in Australia do
enjoy wide-ranging rights and benefits. Marriage however
has been a sticking point that has been denied them.

Quite a few politicians on both sides are changing their
minds on the issue.

As Barry O'Farrell, Liberal Premier of NSW, who's had a
change of heart on the issue has stated:

"We should be encouraging people to have commitment and
family units. So, to recognise that government through
marriage does acknowledge commitment and loving relationships
with certain people in the community and that should be
extended to ALL people in the community."

When New Zealand gave women the right to vote in the 1800s
it took Australia nine years to follow suit. Same-sex
supporters hope that it does not take that long for Australia
to catch up to its smaller neighbour once again.

Many Australians are in favour of marriage equality.
You can Google that fact.

If Constitutions, Human Rights Bills or other laws are
unable to ensure the fundamentals of adulthood and choice
then appropriate legislation is warranted.

You're welcome to disagree with that of course.
We're both entitled to our opinions.
All should be heard.
Reasonably.

Dear Yuyutsu,

As I've stated previously - seeing as the institution
of marriage is legislated in this country and it is
denied to same-sex couples and if Constitutions,
Human Rights Bills or other laws are unable to ensure
the fundamentals of adulthood and choice then
appropriate legislation is warranted.

<<then appropriate legislation is warranted.>>

Yes, I agree.

The appropriate legislation which I suggest should fix this problem, is to repeal the 1961 Marriage Act.

onthebeach - What expertise do you have since you purport to be a better judge than the Gillard government and the Australian Human Rights Commission?

With all due respects, wouldn't you agree that **ANYBODY**, even the drovers dog, would be an infinitely better judge than the red-headed witch or a gubmunt bureaucrazy muppet :) :) :) That aside, I agree 100% with your views on the part played by militant feminazis, queerdom has yet to realize what its got itself into.

Dear Prax.,

"Militant feminazis?"

Are they any different from the goose-stepping
brotherhood?

Lexi - "Militant feminazis?"

Are they any different from the goose-stepping
brotherhood?

Yeah, the geese are males as far as I'm aware :)

The real reason Rodney Croome and fellow lobbyists do not want a referendum, is that they know that the majority of voters do not want to trash the definition of marriage.

Instead, the lobbyists aim to get their way by bullying politicians, so that they can count on their conscience vote. What observers fail to realise is that the succumbing politicians then have a conflict of interest by acting against the wishes of the majority of constituents they represent.

Of course, the more Liberal MPs who surrender their conscience vote to the SSM lobby, the better the lobby's prospects.

What the "same-sex marriage" proponents demand is destructive change to the definition of marriage and what it really means. What they destroy is that marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.

The term "same-sex marriage" gives the appearance of same-sex couples merely participating in marriage, but in reality that is impossible. To accommodate same-sex couples requires redefining marriage in the law to make marriage merely the public recognition of a committed relationship for the fulfilment and happiness of adults. There is no longer any inherent connection between the relationship of the adults, procreation, children, and a family of common ancestry

Lexi,

So you cannot mount any argument to prove your unfounded allegation that gays are discriminated against by the Marriage Act and their rights are being denied?

You cannot dispel what the Gillard government and the Australian Human Rights Commission have been saying, that the Marriage Act does not discriminate against gays, nor does it diminish their rights.

General Comment,

Of course the feminists and 'Progressives' have hitched a ride on the gay wagon and have managed to steer it as well. The rush is on to bed down laws to complete the social engineering and to regulate their relationships and lifestyles to be just like 'breeders'. So much for the previous freedom, diversity and future options of queer culture. Society should protect and cultivate some outlaws who are not threats to democracy, and up to recently when the feminists and 'Progressives' got them by the reins, the gays fitted that bill.

Honestly, if the politically oriented feminists and 'Progressive' lobby groups really cared for gays -if their aim was to help gays not to hijack gays to achieve their own political ends- they would have proposed and taken action to give gays more rather than less freedom in conducting their personal affairs. But no, after gay activists fell for the "We're her to protect your rights" bait it is one size fits all State regulation, which was intended all along.

Gay marriage gives precious little to gays, but it prevents any other forms of relationship being developed by them. Many gays might want to flex types of relationship and arrangements. Too late guys, the controlling, authoritarian feminists and political 'Progressives' have pulled that rug out from under your feet. It always was about politics, not caring for gays.

Raycom
I agree. Marriage along with birth and death are all organic affairs and affect state statistics on population, as procreation and death change the popuation of the State. Homosexual relationships have nil affect on population state.

Dear onthebeach,

To make a few corrections for you.

Firstly my claims are not "unfounded" but are actually
based on legal facts given by lawyers such as Slater and Gordon,
amongst others, who tell us that, "Federal legislation
should not seek to privilege particular parts of our
community over another...That is descrimination."
Whether you choose to recognise it or not - the law states
otherwise.

The lawyers point out, that the Marriage Act should be
amended to define marriage as the "union of two people'
irrespective of sex, sexual orientation and gender
identity." Changes to the Marriage Act giving equality to
all is a reform that needs to be done."

And again, legal experts tell us that the Marriage Act
"privileges heterosexual relationships while undermining
same-sex relationship recognition..."

Finally although the government currently is not in favour
of amending the Marriage Act, for political reasons, and this
being an election year, the "Marriage Equality
Amendment Bill 2013" will be put to a vote before the Senate.
The next time it just may get through. Who knows.
Politicians are beginning to view things differently with
countries like New Zealand making changes.

This information is currently available on the web.
You can Google it for yourself as I've done.
And if you did you would discover that these facts do not change
simply because you choose to ignore them.

Lexi,

You must not have read my post of Monday, 27 May 2013. Hereit is again for you,

<Once again the lie that gays are somehow being denied their rights.

It is balderdash isn't it? Because if it were true, activists would be beating a path to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

No, the truth that is the opposite applies. The Gillard government has declared that it removed all discrimination against gays by over 80 law changes taken some years ago. The Australian Human Rights Commission does not believe that the Marriage Act discriminates against gays>

You are saying that the Gillard government, the Australian Attorney Generals Departmnent and the Australian Human Rights Commission are liars.

Dear Lexi,

"Federal legislation should not seek to privilege particular parts of our community over another...That is descrimination."

If discrimination is a bad thing, then why are children not allowed to drive?

"Changes to the Marriage Act giving equality to all is a reform that needs to be done."

Sure there need to be changes to the Marriage Act - it should be repealed!
(that would also satisfy Slater and Gordon's demand for equality to all)

Dear onthebeach,

Again a few corrections:

As far as Gays are concerned -
The Gillard government certainly has made changes
in areas dealing with social security, taxation, Medicare,
veteran's affairs, workers' compensation, educational
assistance, superannuation, child support... However
it has not made any changes to the laws governing
marriage. As Slater and Gordon lawyers point out -
"Federal legislation should not seek to privilege
particular parts of our community over another."

You keep quoting the Human Rights Commission - kindly
check your facts and the context and case to which
a comment was made by someone in that Department. It does
not represent the views of the Department.

The Attorney General's office comments only on the law as
it currently stands. It does not take sides on legal
matters. And as lawyers point out - "The Marriage Act
should be amended to define marriage as the union of
two people' irrespective of sex, sexual orientation and
gender identity."

Dear Yuyutsu,

We're talking about changes that should be made to the
Marriage Act as it currently stands. Because it does
privilege heterosexual relationship while undermining
same-sex relationship recognition.

Lexi,
Please tell us how the current marriage act discriminates against Homosexual relationships? beside not registering them with the State.
What rights and responsibilities do they not have?

The actual marriage is not the paper or the registration, or the love that exists between two people. Do not define marriage of two people who love each other or live in the same household, because that discriminates against two sisters, two brothers or mutual friends who do not wish to consider themselves as married. Why? Because they do not have sexual intercourse with each other. Marriage is mutual sex in a committed exclusive relationship.

Dear Lexi,

<<We're talking about changes that should be made to the Marriage Act as it currently stands.>>

Repealing this law is a legitimate change to the way it currently stands.

<<Because it does privilege heterosexual relationship while undermining same-sex relationship recognition.>>

This heterosexual privilege embedded in the current Marriage Act, is only a symptom, one symptom that is only the tip of the iceberg, not the root of the problem.

The root of the problem is that the state attempts to define and compartmentalise us and our personal relationships.

Dear Yuyutsu,

My apologies, I've re-read your previous post and
I had misunderstood you earlier.

You've raised an excellent point.

Thank You.

Yuyutsu - The root of the problem is that the state attempts to define and compartmentalise us and our personal relationships.

No argument from me there, its simply part and parcel of the yearning for absolute power that is inextricably associated with any form of authority. We do (collectively) however ALLOW the state to have power, whereas a far more reasoned approach would be to place very clearly defined limits on the power invested in anyone. One obvious way of doing this is to demand Citizen Initiated Referenda a la Switzerland & some of the US states. Note that Senator Madigan already has a bill to this effect on the table and I understand he has support from a number of individuals both in the Senate & within the House of Representatives. Obviously there will be concerted opposition from the vast majority of elected representatives but its to every voters advantage to demand their federal representatives to support this initiative.